Forum:Democratic Process
The Problem with Democracy is that the people generally get about the kind of government they deserve. In Mexico, Caderon vs Lopez Obrador. The winner is presently unknown, but when he is identified he will be the last thing one could imagine as a ‘winner’. Either man will be the President with the narrowest of majorities. That means almost half the population will move into the future disappointed, upset, angry to some degree about the result of the election. The slightly-more-than-half-group will largely be disappointed, frustrated, and, yes, angry, too, that their champion will be so hamstrung as to be nearly impotent. As with many things in this world, it is always easier to see the mote in our neighbor’s eye than to cast out the beam in our own. But the current Mexican trauma is exactly what the US experienced in 2000. It’s certainly impossible to predict what 2000-2004 would have been like absent 9/11, but, when viewed from this perspective, what the US wound up with was a President, elected by a razor thin majority, who overnight became unanimously empowered by a shocked populace, stunned into an almost religious faith in our leader, since no one could envision any alternative. What happened in the US elections in 2004 should tell us what we can expect in 2006 and beyond. In 2004 political operatives in both parties elbowed their positions toward the center, in much the same way that athletes (in basketball, handball, squash...) seek the central ground for its strategic advantage. So it appears that in 2006 and thereafter we are doomed to selecting our leaders from a field where candidates’ significant positions are selected from a common menu of similarities, so that the only deciding factors are the extreme factions who support tangential issues, and the individual parties’ ability to energize their support and get out their vote. This two party approach is being (has been?) hard wired into our system with the Supreme Court’s validation of Texas redistricting for strictly partisan purposes. With 95% of all Federal incumbents winning, the system is not self-correcting, but rather appears tilting further away from government of, by, and for the people, granting success not to important ideals, but rather to incumbency, special interest relationships, and middle of the road mediocrity. What we need is a Plan B. I wish I could construct a bumper sticker suggestion, but, at this stage, I cannot. I doubt if one exists. I do think that any solution will require the elimination of the stranglehold our two major political parties have over the process. I also think that the process can only be strengthened by the power-leveling nature of today’s communications facilities; I see progress toward improvement measured in the way in which personal communications (telephonic, Internet) replace reliance on the mass electronic media. Electoral College reform has already begun in several states, and it needs to be expanded. The right of the people to directly petition to create change needs to become part of every state’s catalog of democracy, but with some controls built in reflecting the experience, particularly in California, preventing crowd hysteria governance. Can we start a dialogue, with more light than heat, to fashion an approach to a political Plan B? --Bats 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Bats :I believe that it has been said that Democracy is the worst possible and most complicated form of government ever used, except when compared with any other. Chadlupkes 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) In my own small way I'm a part of a "Plan B". I work for a campaign to legalize Cross-endorsement Voting, where voters can vote for major party politicians on the ballot line of a minor party which has endorsed that politician. That way people can vote for politicians that they believe could actually win, overcoming the psychological inability for US voters to back minor party candidates because they don't want to vote for a 'loser'. I think it is a very powerful tool that smaller parties can use to gain traction. It's a long way from perfect, because in some ways it supports the entrenched 2-party interests. It's weakness, however, is also a strength- that's why I think it's going to work, because you can make a legitimate pitch to major party politicians that it can and will work in their interests. Over time a smaller party could use their ballot line to gain strength enough to put up credible candidates. The 2 Major parties are, in my opinion, too practiced at staying in power for most election reform ideas to get anywhere. This one, on the ballot in November in my home state of MA, actually has a shot because it offers practical benefits to current politicians in the short term, while offering practical long term options for new voices to get themselves heard.--Vive42 00:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)--Vive42 00:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)